https://www.schneier.com/blog/archiv...medium=twitter
They filmed and recorded everything under the pretense of fixing the Internet, and then used the information collected from that to get an actual search warrant. To make matters even worse, they lied to the judge about how they got their evidence.
Classy.
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
Yea, that's what I was referencing earlier when I said:To make matters even worse, they lied to the judge about how they got their evidence.
The details of them lying to the judge came out pretty early when the story broke, which is why I was all the more shocked to see the claim in this thread that cops need more "flexibility."Originally Posted by Byron
Side A: Law enforcement agents lying to a judge in order to circumvent the Constitution
Side B: Guys running illegal gambling
Despite the FBI's steadfast assertion that Side A is the "good guys" and Side B is the "bad guys," I'm not buying it.
I don't give a rat's ass about gambling, but even if their suspected crime was much worse, Side A can not claim to be "good guys" while using such tactics. Hell, they can't even claim to be law enforcement agents. "Oh, that Bill of Rights thing? Nowhere near as important as some statutes on gambling. Let's violate the former so we can catch people who violated the latter: it's for the greater good of society!"
"If you run into an a**hole in the morning, you ran into an a**hole. If you run into a**holes all day, you're the a**hole." - Raylan Givens
A serious question. Were the statements or supporting documents given by the FBI Special Agents to the judge made under oath? If so, is it perjury?
This troubles me a great deal.
Every time I've got a search warrant, including the two I did today, I've been under oath when speaking with the Judge. If they knowingly lied, they should be fired and criminally charged.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
It's been done before. IIRC, all of the affidavits are made under oath. The quick bit of background research I did suggests that police perjury in the warrant process isn't as uncommon as we'd like to think. How it is handled, however, varies.
At a minimum, the warrant is no good (and thus, any evidence seized from its service is excluded). While good faith reliance on a faulty warrant is still a permissible search (United States v. Leon), that exception to the Exclusionary Rule is predicated on good faith behavior by the officers. Perjuring oneself is inconsistent with good faith.
ETA: Leon wasn't the proper case.
"[W]e hold that, where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the alleged false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request. In the event that at the hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit's false material set to one side, the affidavit's remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded."
United States v. Franks
Last edited by ssb; 12-18-2014 at 05:20 PM.
That was what I had thought, that the information presented was done so under oath.
Thank you very much for the information, and stay safe.
4th Amendment, Where art thou?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...alls/22007615/
Cody
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
Im sure this item will go the same as FLIR, which SCOTUS has already decided in Kyllo v US.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
